SPOUSES CLEMENCIO C. SABITSANA, JR.

and
MA. ROSARIO M. SABITSANA, Petitioners,
vs. JUANITO F. MUERTEGUI, represented
by his Attorney-in-Fact DOMINGO A.
MUERTEGUI, JR., Respondent. [G.R. No. 181359,
August 5, 2013, DEL CASTILLO, J.]
On the question of jurisdiction, it is clear under the
Rules that an action for quieting of title may be
instituted in the RTCs, regardless of the assessed
value of the real property in dispute. Under Rule 63
of the Rules of Court, an action to quiet title to real
property or remove clouds therefrom may be brought
in the appropriate RTC.
In 1981, Alberto Garcia (Garcia) executed an
unnotarized Deed of Sale in favor of respondent Juanito
over a 7,500-square meter parcel of unregistered land
located in Dalutan Island, Talahid, Almeira, Biliran,
Leyte del Norte covered by a tax declaration in Garcias
name.
Juanitos father Domingo Muertegui, Sr.
(Domingo Sr.) and brother Domingo Jr. took actual
possession of the lot and planted thereon coconut and
ipil-ipil trees. They also paid the real property taxes on
the lot for the years 1980 up to 1998.
In 1991, Garcia sold the lot to the Muertegui
family lawyer, Atty. Sabitsana, through a notarized
deed of absolute sale. The sale was registered with the
Register of Deeds on 1992. Although Domingo Jr. and
Sr. paid the real estate taxes, Atty. Sabitsana also paid
real property taxes in 1992, 1993, and 1999. In 1996,
Atty. Sabitsana introduced concrete improvements on
the property, which shortly thereafter were destroyed
by a typhoon.
When Domingo Sr. passed away, his heirs
applied for registration and coverage of the lot under
the Public Land Act. Atty. Sabitsana, opposed the
application, claiming that he was the true owner of the
lot. He asked that the application for registration be
held in abeyance until the issue of conflicting
ownership has been resolved.
Juanito, through his attorney-in-fact Domingo
Jr., filed an action for quieting of title and preliminary
injunction, against herein petitioners Atty. Sabitsana
and his wife, Rosario, claiming that they bought the lot
in bad faith and are exercising acts of possession and
ownership over the same, which acts thus constitute a
cloud over his title. The Complaint prayed, among

others, that the sale to Sabitsana be declared null and

void and of no effect.
On the contrary, petitioners asserted mainly
that the sale to Juanito is null and void absent the
marital consent of Garcias wife, Soledad; that they
acquired the property in good faith and for value; and
that the Complaint is barred by prescription and laches.
They likewise insisted that the RTC of Naval,
Biliran did not have jurisdiction over the case,
which involved title to or interest in a parcel of
land the assessed value of which is merely
P1,230.00.
RTC ruled against Sabitsana, Jr. It held that
petitioners are not buyers in good faith, having
knowledge of a previous sale on the subject property.
CA denied the subsequent appeal and affirmed RTCs
decision in toto.
Undaunted, petitioners filed a petition for
review on Certiorari raising the issue that the RTC has
no jurisdiction over the case in view of the fact that the
assessed value of the subject land was only P1,230.00.
Respondent counters that a suit for quieting of title is
one whose subject matter is incapable of pecuniary
estimation, and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the
RTC.
ISSUE: Does the RTC have jurisdiction over the
suit for quieting of title?
RULING:
YES. The Regional Trial Court has
jurisdiction over the suit for quieting of title.
On the question of jurisdiction, it is clear
under the Rules that an action for quieting of
title may be instituted in the RTCs, regardless of
the assessed value of the real property in
dispute. Under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, an
action to quiet title to real property or remove
clouds therefrom may be brought in the
appropriate RTC.
It must be remembered that the suit for
quieting of title was prompted by petitioners August
24, 1998 letter-opposition to respondents application
for registration. Thus, in order to prevent a cloud from
being cast upon his application for a title, respondent
filed Civil Case No. B-1097 to obtain a declaration of his
rights. In this sense, the action is one for declaratory
relief, which properly falls within the jurisdiction of the
RTC pursuant to Rule 63 of the Rules.